Access to the ombudsman institution should be free of charge. Procedures should be informal with easy accessibility (including local offices). Procedures should have a non-judicial, non-adversarial character. Proceedings should be confidential (if desired by complainant). Easy access is one of the main features of the institution. Complaints are investigated free of charge. In most cases there is no formal requirement for the method of making the complaint, meaning that the ombudsman will sometimes help in formulating the complaint itself. Complaints can be taken in writing, electronically, by phone or can even be made personally in the complaint offices of the institution. In this regard it is often crucial that the institution establishes regional offices outside of the capital city, and arranges for ‘open days’, allowing the public to visit the office. Assistance from lawyers is not necessary for making a complaint to the ombudsman. The professional methods of investigation, methods of persuasion and conciliation, and the threat of publicity can in many cases provide an alternative to the protracted, costly, adversarial procedures and to the mostly individualized remedies provided by the judicial system. In general it takes a much shorter time de facto for the ombudsman to resolve complaints than is the case for court procedures. Also the procedures conducted by the ombudsman are much less adversarial than court proceedings: first in the sense of focusing on investigation, second in the sense that the aim of the institution is not to find and punish the wrongdoer, but, where fault is found, to make him or her understand the incorrectness of the action in question, to persuade this person that the action complained of resulted in treating the victim inhumanly or unfairly, and thus that a remedy is due. Persuasion also has the advantage of preventing the wrongdoer from committing the same action repeatedly. PART I concern. These would require more general investigations and demand sufficient resources to ensure that high quality work can be undertaken. These procedures will be especially advantageous for those who have a lower level of education and/or different language skills than the majority population, and perhaps cannot formulate their complaint, who cannot afford the costs of a judicial procedure, or who lack the self-confidence to raise their voice. All of these factors – poverty, lower level of education, lower self-confidence – impact members of minorities disproportionately. Thus access of groups such as the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe to ombudsman institutions will generally improve their chances of making complaints with respect to minority rights. Regulations must be in place for cases that raise a conflict of interest. A regulation should be in place for procedures when there is a conflict of interest in a specific case since this could raise doubts about the impartiality of the ombudsperson. A possible avenue could be to use an alternative investigative officer, possibly a deputy ombudsperson. Mediation should be used by ombudsman institutions. Mediation is considered one of the most important tools available both to a general ombudsman and to a specialized minority ombudsman institution in solving human rights and minority rights related cases. It is an alternative method of dispute resolution, which offers a relatively non-legalistic settlement of a complaint. Mediation seems to be a very good tool for addressing issues of discrimination or other violations of minority rights because it avoids the adversarial procedures and formalism 19